No refusal dui check points in tn.

[npgunner]

I'm against the DUI checkpoints in the first place but once they have reasonable suspicion to believe you're drunk driving, all bets are off with breathalyzers and blood samples.

I agree with this.
After googling the "no refusal" a bit it seems that they maybe should re-brand what they're doing. No refusal sounds as if I pull up to the checkpoint and have no ability to refuse search of my car or taking some DUI test regardless of whether or not there is suspicion of being intoxicated.
If I understand it correctly ... the "no refusal" part only applies after the LEO has actually arrested you. If that's true then it doesn't bother me. If its true that the LEO can get a rubber stamped "warrant" to force me to blow into some machine just because I drive down the wrong road this weekend, then I have a problem with it; but I also don't agree with DUI checkpoints or a lot of other things done in the name of "safety."

[BigK]

This is a law which I don't see why anyone would have a problem with it.

 

No one has a right to drive a vehicle at all and certainly not so while under the influence...anyone who does that is SCUM and is every bit as dangerous to innocent people (and just as much of a thug) as the thug that breaks into you house at 3AM.

 

I've lost too many people to these scum; I have less than ZERO sympathy left for any of them.

 

I couldn't agree more!

I'm not saying we should drag anyone who's had a single beer out in the woods and shoot them, if they're caught driving.

However, drinkers have the burden of knowing both the legal limit and their own limit and not exceeding either.

If they can't/don't, the penalty is already no where stiff enough, IMO.

[UncleJak]

I have personally driven through two of these. I rolled my window down, had my license in hand, said hi to the officer, he said have a nice day, and I went on through. Dont drink and drive. They won't have any reason to deviate from the aforementioned format.

sent barefoot from the hills of Tennessee

[cj0e]

I have personally driven through two of these. I rolled my window down, had my license in hand, said hi to the officer, he said have a nice day, and I went on through. Dont drink and drive. They won't have any reason to deviate from the aforementioned format.

sent barefoot from the hills of Tennessee

 

Absolutely. Knowing officers who work these checkpoints, and having driven through a couple as well, this has been my normal experience. Never been subjected to a breathalyzer,field sobriety test, etc. I don't drink and drive and therefore don't appear impaired at the checkpoint... it also helps that I don't smell like a cheap bottle of scotch or a skunked beer.

 

Also, checkpoints can be more than just sobriety checks; some are seat belt (yeah, I don't think it should be the law, but it is), others are DL/"zee papers".

 

Links / PDF WARNING on both:

 

Here's August 2013 checkpoints

 

and September 2013

 

As far as "zee papers" yeah, I get that it feels moderately gestapo to set up stops just to check for papers. Unlike the gestapo, however, these are published stops, best make your way around these locations if you intend to break "zee law". My family has had enough trouble from wrecks/etc from people driving without insurance etc that I don't mind em checking.

[LagerHead]

_{It's legal;. There is no Constitutional right to drive a car. It is a privilege extended by the State of Tennessee. Since they are the agency extending the privilege, they have to right to decide the conditions of the privilege (regulations).}

 

I don't see in the Constitution where it says you can walk the streets either. Isn't it amazing how generous our government is to let do things like that? Oh, and breathing! I can't begin to thank them enough for their limitless benevolence. 

[UncleJak]

I don't see in the Constitution where it says you can walk the streets either. Isn't it amazing how generous our government is to let do things like that? Oh, and breathing! I can't begin to thank them enough for their limitless benevolence.

good point. I do enjoy breathing.
I wish everyone would just not drink and drive. Then we wouldn't have to have this discussion.

sent barefoot from the hills of Tennessee

[DaveTN]

You can drunk drive it all day long on your land. Driving it on the road is a different story.

You can drive drunk on your own property in Tennessee? Because most states I’m aware of drunk driving laws are enforceable on private property. In fact, in many states you don’t even have to be driving; just in physical control of a vehicle.

[Dustbuster]

Nite on the town 100.00?
Price of a limo or taxi for one hour 100.00
Price for a DUI atty: 5000.00
Bond : 500.00
Time off work
DMV fees 300.00
Insurance etc 1000.00 addl
Time to settle case 1 year
Cost of life or damage incurred?

That 100.00 dollar bill hidden in your wallet is the best way to go. It just isn't worth it and driving is a privilege not a right... Ask anyone that rides the bus everyday....

[Mark@Sea]

The Constitution doesn't grant us a single right.  What it does is tell the government what it may not do.  Enter my property and search without a warrant, for example, or go through my private papers or mail without probable cause, or infringe my ownership or carrying of a firearm.  Or detain me on my travels randomly.  Or take my property without just recompense.

  Every one of these rules are violated daily.  Mainly because when they started to violate them, the majority said "oh, it's just those crooks, they don't deserve the same protections we do."  Every one of these violations is backed by 'fancy' legal reasoning that says, in effect, that the plain language in the constitution forbidding that violation doesn't really mean what it says, or doesn't apply all the time, or doesn't apply to those folks.

 

No, thank you.

[TMF]

You can drive drunk on your own property in Tennessee? Because most states I’m aware of drunk driving laws are enforceable on private property. In fact, in many states you don’t even have to be driving; just in physical control of a vehicle.

I've seen folks be charged just for having control, but on your own property? I don't think so. I would have to see how the law is written, but that would make no sense. I'm trying to remember what state it was in, but I remember reading a story about a lottery winner who would hold drunk demolition derbys on his property. I don't see how any of that is illegal. Same as other traffic laws; insurance, registration, speed...

[Stegall Law Firm]

It has to be on a public road or highway, or street or alley, a parking lot-type area, or "any other premises that is generally frequented by the public at large."

It is not about the privilege of driving, it is about the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. A blood draw is a search (and a pretty invasive one), and it can be argued that a breath test is also. Not sure that it'll work, but some top DUI lawyers I know have even talked about challenging implied consent this way.

[mikegideon]

You can drive drunk on your own property in Tennessee? Because most states I’m aware of drunk driving laws are enforceable on private property. In fact, in many states you don’t even have to be driving; just in physical control of a vehicle.

 

If I can't drive my tractor drunk on my own property, I'm moving to Costa Rica :)

[BigK]

every time I hear a story about a DUI lawyer getting some alcoholic 3-time drunk driving a-hole off over some technicality, it makes me sick...lousy ambulance-chasing douchebags Edited August 31, 2013 by BigK

[TMF]

Not sure that it'll work, but some top DUI lawyers I know have even talked about challenging implied consent this way.

Doesn't the fact that when you're issued your license you must agree to those terms negate an argument against implied consent?

[TMF]

every time I hear a story about a DUI lawyer getting some alcoholic 3-time drunk driving a-hole off over some technicality, it makes me sick...lousy ambulance-chasing douchebags

As much as I hate seeing them get off, the defense lawyer is just doing their job. I'm more apt to blame the DA who pleads it down or chooses not to prosecute because, God forbid, he may not win a conviction. We recently saw a 5 time DUI offender who killed a man while drunk driving get no jail time and a sentence of probation. The DA and judge are to blame. I'd rather see them get off scot free than see them get a slap on the wrist out of laziness.

[BigK]

As much as I hate seeing them get off, the defense lawyer is just doing their job. I'm more apt to blame the DA who pleads it down or chooses not to prosecute because, God forbid, he may not win a conviction. We recently saw a 5 time DUI offender who killed a man while drunk driving get no jail time and a sentence of probation. The DA and judge are to blame. I'd rather see them get off scot free than see them get a slap on the wrist out of laziness.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I have no love for those lazy pieces of %&#* either, but at least a plea is better than not-guilty (i.e. no punishment at all).

I still despise those defense attorneys who specialize in DUI law even more, though. I'd be more proud if my kid became a janitor than one of these low-lifes.

[Mark@Sea]

DUI should lead to sale of the vehicle at public auction, with proceeds going to the offender (if no accident involved) or the victim if there is an accident.

[Stegall Law Firm]

I still despise those defense attorneys who specialize in DUI law even more, though. I'd be more proud if my kid became a janitor than one of these low-lifes.

Yeah defending the Constitution is such a shameful, repulsive occupation. Look there are plenty of drunk drivers who deserve their punishment, but before you lump everyone into the same category educate yourself on the facts. Do a search on a lady named Annie Dookhan, who's about to go down hard for falsifying lab results. Search the major problems that are going on with the crime labs in Colorado, Seattle and Scottsdale. Innocent people get railroaded because of the cash cow that DUI is for local governments. Prosecutions are made based on assumptions, but science consistently proves otherwise.

As for the low life attorneys, they are the best at what they do. They work harder than their police and prosecutor counterparts (which is why they win and also why they get paid the big bucks), and if it weren't for them the aforementioned rats would never have been caught.

Lawyers. Long time ago there was an incident called the Boston Massacre. British soldiers, despised occupiers and agents of the Crown, fired into a crowd and killed several citizens. Afterward there was outrage in the Colonies. The soldiers had to hang. Not surprisingly, no lawyer wanted to defend them. It would have been crazy to take the case. But one young Boston attorney did, despite the threats and criticism. He won an acquittal for the Captain and none of the others went to jail. His name was John Adams, and he became one of our founding fathers and the second President. Edited August 31, 2013 by Stegall Law Firm

[leroy]

 

...Lawyers. Long time ago there was an incident called the Boston Massacre. British soldiers, despised occupiers and agents of the Crown, fired into a crowd and killed several citizens. Afterward there was outrage in the Colonies. The soldiers had to hang. Not surprisingly, no lawyer wanted to defend them. It would have been crazy to take the case. But one young Boston attorney did, despite the threats and criticism. He won an acquittal for the Captain and none of the others went to jail. His name was John Adams, and he became one of our founding fathers and the second President....

 

I didnt know that !!! Thanks for the mini-history lesson....  Very enlightening...

 

RE:  The "low-life lawyer thing" -- remember the "low-lifes" have gotta eat too; along with payin the bills.   It beats bein on the dole like lots of others are...

 

With the drunk and impared drivin thing; the defense lawyer aint the problem; the drunk/impared driver who does the crime is the problem... Never forget that... . 

 

On a personal basis; I think we should go back to an old testament view of the drunk drivin thing...  If ya injure someone while impaired; the biggest, meanest of the aggrieved family members administers the appropriate punishment.  I also like Mark's idea on selling the car... .

 

I'm sorry, drunk and impaired drivin aint a harmless, victimless "crime"...Dont drink or take dope and then drive and ya wont have the problem.  Abstinence (...from driving...) is the answer here.

 

leroy

[RobertNashville]

I don't see in the Constitution where it says you can walk the streets either. Isn't it amazing how generous our government is to let do things like that? Oh, and breathing! I can't begin to thank them enough for their limitless benevolence.

Generally, walking down the street and/or breathing doesn't put other people's lives at risk. Driving a 3 or 4 of 5,000 vehicle with upwards of 500HP while under the influence of...well, of anything DOES put others at risk.

Certainly, governments like their fees but the reasons we have rules of the road, driver's licenses, mandatory liability insurance, etc. is because there are too damn many people out there who want their "freedom" but are unwilling to take the personal responsibility that is necessary for freedom to work.

That's really all it is...personal responsibility...we wouldn't need mandatory blood tests for DUI or DUI checkpoints if people simply chose to not drive drunk. Edited August 31, 2013 by RobertNashville

[JRWnTN]

DUI should lead to sale of the vehicle at public auction, with proceeds going to the offender (if no accident involved) or the victim if there is an accident.

They've tried that. Too many times the vehicle wasn't worth the cost of towing, storing and selling it.

[TMF]

That's really all it is...personal responsibility...we wouldn't need mandatory blood tests for DUI or DUI checkpoints if people simply chose to not drive drunk.

 

We wouldn't need gun control laws if people chose not to shoot people.

[Chucktshoes]

TMF hit upon the real heart of the matter here. It is the same argument we have with the gun grabbers. On one side you have those who think only folks who give reason for suspicion of criminal behavior should be accosted and on the other side you have those who think that due to the danger to public safety posed by a small irresponsible minority it is acceptable to treat the whole as possibly guilty and that it is incumbent on the individual to demonstrate innocence. Liberty vs the state. Edited August 31, 2013 by Chucktshoes

[BigK]

Yeah defending the Constitution is such a shameful, repulsive occupation. Look there are plenty of drunk drivers who deserve their punishment, but before you lump everyone into the same category educate yourself on the facts. Do a search on a lady named Annie Dookhan, who's about to go down hard for falsifying lab results. Search the major problems that are going on with the crime labs in Colorado, Seattle and Scottsdale. Innocent people get railroaded because of the cash cow that DUI is for local governments. Prosecutions are made based on assumptions, but science consistently proves otherwise.
As for the low life attorneys, they are the best at what they do. They work harder than their police and prosecutor counterparts (which is why they win and also why they get paid the big bucks), and if it weren't for them the aforementioned rats would never have been caught.
Lawyers. Long time ago there was an incident called the Boston Massacre. British soldiers, despised occupiers and agents of the Crown, fired into a crowd and killed several citizens. Afterward there was outrage in the Colonies. The soldiers had to hang. Not surprisingly, no lawyer wanted to defend them. It would have been crazy to take the case. But one young Boston attorney did, despite the threats and criticism. He won an acquittal for the Captain and none of the others went to jail. His name was John Adams, and he became one of our founding fathers and the second President.

Oh yeah, because all lowlife DUI lawyers are just like John Adams....right!?

There's a difference between defending an innocent party against false charges and exploiting the legal system to allow scumbag drunk drivers to continue to go out night after night endangering the lives of decent people. The percentage of innocent clients they defend is statistically insignificant compared to their client base and we all know it. The court system is rigged to protect innocents from prosecution, not the other way around.

Also, I specifically called out DUI lawyers, not all attorneys, so don't get all butt-hurt and try acting like I said all layers are low-lifes. Edited August 31, 2013 by BigK

[Stegall Law Firm]

No worries, I was not offended.  I was simply trying to educate you with facts and real-life, professional experience (which, let's face it, I should have realized is impossible on the internet).  But that's cool.  Everyone has their opinions, and I'll just keep being one of those low-lifes (I practice mostly all criminal and quite a bit DUI).  I currently have several high breath/blood cases and I'll be filing motions to suppress on all of them, because that is what clients pay me to do and that's part of the oath that I took.  So yeah, that must make me a real system-abuser and overall sucker of scum.  I just don't know how I can live with myself.